Eating Meat is Barbaric

[Eudaimonia23]

A philosophical discussion of animal's status must distinguish between wild animals and human created domesticated animals whose entire reason for existing at all is to be culled for their contribution to humans.

If there is no need for animal contribution, say horses for transportation, their numbers drop dramatically due to economic forces without any particular plea or mandate. It is erroneous to suppose that it is "unnatural" to kill and eat animals specifically invented for that purpose (as opposed to hunting wild animals for the same thing).

As a separate and in my opinion, more important issue, improving the conditions of the segment of the ranching industry that occupies the lowest portion of the spectrum is where the most actual improvements in animal welfare will occur.

I never stated that it's unnatural to kill animals.

On the contrary, it is actually natural to kill animals.

But just because something is natural, that doesn't necessarily make it morally right.

Rape, for example, is natural. But any civilized person would say it's morally reprehensible.

You also need to remember that those animals that have been culled and created a certain way are still living, breathing beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering.

I don't know if you are lacking the ability to experience empathy and compassion, but yeah, having your throat slit open doesn't feel good, even for culled and specifically created animals.

You're kind of all over the place. So are you okay with eating animals who were anesthetized before being killed? Are you against the practice regardless or just under certain circumstances?

As to my empathy and compassion quotient, since only 1% of Americans are vegan, if one's eating habits are the measure of those (which, of course it isn't, despite your histrionics), mine are in the top 10%, since I make the decision to spend more to select less inhumane ranches as my source of foodstuffs.

BTW I can't wait to hear your details on why you find the practice of rape: "natural'. I'll go make some popcorn.

I'm not all over the place.

You are simply not understanding me.

Let me try to make this clear.

I don't condone slaughtering animals at all and I don't condone rape at all.

I consider rape morally reprehensible and I also consider animal slaughter morally reprehensible.

When I stated that rape was natural, what I meant is that it was/is commonplace in a state of nature, where the rule of law does not exist. Rape, pillage, and plunder were commonplace in the ancient world.

I still believe this is morally wrong though, let me make that clear again.

Bad things, brutal things occur in nature all the time. It's unfortunate.

We humans don't have to be so cruel though. We have the ability to behave morally and benevolently.

Any person who believes himself civilized should take no part in the savagery of the animal slaughterhouse industry.

[henry quirk]

Many Bioroombas seem vastly better people than many 'persons'.

Sure. I've had animals (dogs, cats, a horse) who I liked way more than most people of my acquaintance.

[henry quirk]

Them pork chops were awfully tasty.

[Iwannaplato]

Many Bioroombas seem vastly better people than many 'persons'.

Sure. I've had animals (dogs, cats, a horse) who I liked way more than most people of my acquaintance.

I hoee you didn't eat them!

[henry quirk]

I hope you didn't eat them!

Nah. Would have, though, in the right (or very wrong) circumstance.

[bahman]

If we are to truly consider ourselves moral and civilized, then we must get rid of the animal slaughterhouse industry. It has no place in a modern civilization that prides itself on enlightenment and ethical principles. We are not cavemen anymore; we don't need to hunt anymore. We live in a modern civilization with plenty of resources. Being vegan it totally practical. And there are also plenty of vegan sources of protein. You won't be malnourished. The animal slaughterhouse industry is ugly and cruel. We must acquire a new morality that truly includes the well being of animals.

Killing animals and eating their meat is barbaric and cruel.

Part of the human telos is to evolve and transcend. We must respect animals in order to promote an ever advancing civilization.

Choose the benevolent and compassionate path and be vegan. It is worth it.

Whatever we eat is alive! The point is you take one life opportunity when you eat something so you should be grateful and give something in return to make your life worthwhile.

[LuckyR]

I'm not all over the place.

You are simply not understanding me.

Let me try to make this clear.

I don't condone slaughtering animals at all and I don't condone rape at all.

I consider rape morally reprehensible and I also consider animal slaughter morally reprehensible.

When I stated that rape was natural, what I meant is that it was/is commonplace in a state of nature, where the rule of law does not exist. Rape, pillage, and plunder were commonplace in the ancient world.

I still believe this is morally wrong though, let me make that clear again.

Bad things, brutal things occur in nature all the time. It's unfortunate.

We humans don't have to be so cruel though. We have the ability to behave morally and benevolently.

Any person who believes himself civilized should take no part in the savagery of the animal slaughterhouse industry.

I respect your personal decision and opinion not to consume animals at all regardless of the circumstances of their situation. That is a very reasonable and internally logical choice.

I would advise you, communication clarity-wise to forgo focusing on specific details of the practice of the industry since it gives the (erroneous) impression that you only object to those specific factors and that examples of the practice that avoid those are acceptable to you, when they actually aren't.

I now understand your use of the term "natural", which seems to include anything that a human or animal might do. I don't disagree with you that using that (atypical in my experience) definition, rape would qualify for that label. Just don't be surprised if future audiences don't share your definition of the term and thus your declarations mislead them, to your detriment.

Lastly, but most importantly, the "problem" if one drills down to the core of the issue isn't the killing of domesticated animals, it's the creation and breeding of them, since that is, in fact their purpose. It's akin to complaining that internal combustion engines release carbon dioxide exhaust. That's inherent to their function. If you don't want that exhaust don't complain about how ICE function, don't make them in the first place. Don't complain about the killing associated with ranching, eliminate the need for the industry as a whole.

[LuckyR]

What a hypocrite. Hope you or your loved ones never need surgery or a medication. How, exactly do you think advances in medicine occur? Magic?

Lemme help you out here. When dealing with either Immanuel Can or Age you can't split a single continuous thought into multiple sentences and imagine your counterpart will realise they are a continuous thought just because you followed the convention of putting such a thing into a paragraph. Thus, the one that is autistic will accidentally split that para into atomised sentences and never even realise that they are related in such a way that the question one sentence provokes is answered by the next, and the one who just lacks decency and honesty will deliberately do the same.

I have tested this, and the way to control Age is to tell him at the start of every single paragraph you write that this is a full paragraph and he is not allowed to split it up. Literally, every single one. I sort of tested on IC as well, but his condition is more advanced than age's so there's nothing to be done for him I'm afraid.

Yes, thanks for underscoring the obvious. Though I am not posting for an audience of one (or two). In my experience, there is a Silent Majority audience that posts rarely (or never), who are familiar with the plurality of internally logical viewpoints and don't suffer from Inferiority Complexes such that opinions different from their own don't frighten them.

[FlashDangerpants]

What a hypocrite. Hope you or your loved ones never need surgery or a medication. How, exactly do you think advances in medicine occur? Magic?

Lemme help you out here. When dealing with either Immanuel Can or Age you can't split a single continuous thought into multiple sentences and imagine your counterpart will realise they are a continuous thought just because you followed the convention of putting such a thing into a paragraph. Thus, the one that is autistic will accidentally split that para into atomised sentences and never even realise that they are related in such a way that the question one sentence provokes is answered by the next, and the one who just lacks decency and honesty will deliberately do the same.

I have tested this, and the way to control Age is to tell him at the start of every single paragraph you write that this is a full paragraph and he is not allowed to split it up. Literally, every single one. I sort of tested on IC as well, but his condition is more advanced than age's so there's nothing to be done for him I'm afraid.

Yes, thanks for underscoring the obvious. Though I am not posting for an audience of one (or two). In my experience, there is a Silent Majority audience that posts rarely (or never), who are familiar with the plurality of internally logical viewpoints and don't suffer from Inferiority Complexes such that opinions different from their own don't frighten them.

Were you replying to somebody else's post and you hit the quote button on mine by mistake?

[LuckyR]

Nope, to you (though I used your post as a jumping off point for my own observations).

[FlashDangerpants]

Weird, but whatever, you do you.

[Atla]

In my experience, there is a Silent Majority audience that posts rarely (or never), who are familiar with the plurality of internally logical viewpoints and don't suffer from Inferiority Complexes such that opinions different from their own don't frighten them.

You seem to be imagining things..

[Eudaimonia23]

If we are to truly consider ourselves moral and civilized, then we must get rid of the animal slaughterhouse industry. It has no place in a modern civilization that prides itself on enlightenment and ethical principles. We are not cavemen anymore; we don't need to hunt anymore. We live in a modern civilization with plenty of resources. Being vegan it totally practical. And there are also plenty of vegan sources of protein. You won't be malnourished. The animal slaughterhouse industry is ugly and cruel. We must acquire a new morality that truly includes the well being of animals.

Killing animals and eating their meat is barbaric and cruel.

Part of the human telos is to evolve and transcend. We must respect animals in order to promote an ever advancing civilization.

Choose the benevolent and compassionate path and be vegan. It is worth it.

Whatever we eat is alive! The point is you take one life opportunity when you eat something so you should be grateful and give something in return to make your life worthwhile.

Yes, plants are living organisms but they don't have a central nervous system. They don't experience pain when consumed.

Veganism is just about minimizing pain and suffering as much as possible.

Eating plants as opposed to animals is the ethical and compassionate way to go.

[Age]

Age, this stuff doesn't work on me. Perhaps it will on your target audience.

What stuff?

And, what stuff does work on 'you'?

[Age]

Nor does this stuff. Couldn't manage to be honest about something so simple, could ya?
But, maybe your target audience won't see through your B.S.

Look at these last two posts here. These people do not quote a single word that I have said and written here, but then write 'this stuff'.

Literally, absolutely nothing is provided, and then both say and claim, 'this stuff does not work'.